Sometimes I wonder what the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation means when it requires all teachers to be highly-qualified. It’s still the law. No changes yet. No matter how often my union (CTA) brings it up in its magazine.
3rd grader reads at home
In the latest issue of California Educator, September 2009, the problem is seen in the Race to the Top requirements: “paying teachers based on a single test score will increase the likelihood of teaching to the test and make it harder to recruit and retain teachers.” (p. 30)
I read those words and think how does my training make me want to be paid only for teaching to make sure students pass a test? Is that what a highly-qualified teacher does?
I spent two years taking classes in the latest research before I was credentialed. None of it was about teaching to a test. In reading/language arts, the curriculum focused on the best practices known to show students how to figure out unknown vocabulary and to read for meaning so that no matter what text, fiction or non-fiction, is found in the test booklet, they will be able to show what they have learned.
For mathematics, we were trained to use the most up-to-date strategies to teach students beginning set theory for little kids through pre-algebra for upper elementary students. In my current class, the students are very strong in mathematical understanding, so I spend my time assembling enrichment materials.
In California, the same as many other states, I wrote my own research papers, using the students in my student-teaching classes as subjects to test the strategies I was studying. I took the CBEST, the exam that new teachers must pass before being credentialed. I observed and student-taught at three different grade levels. I was evaluated on my lesson plans and classroom management skills for those weeks. Even in my second year, I’m still observed and evaluated, being a probationary teacher. I get good remarks for my work.
Doesn’t it sound like I’m highly-qualified? I know, however, that I’m fortunate to teach students that are highly motivated and who have parents who encourage them and spend a great deal of time giving them after-school opportunities.
What if, like some teacher friends from my credentialing program, I was hired in a low-income neighborhood where the students don’t have the advantages my students enjoy? What if the students were struggling with another language? Enough food? Illness? Parents who worked all the time and still didn’t have enough money for trips to museums or the beach or the sights of San Francisco, much less a home library?
And what if, no matter all the best practices of the teachers and enthusiasm of the students, the yearly test scores improve, but only little by little, and it takes relentless struggle to reach the benchmarks set by the state each year. Some years, the benchmarks aren’t met.
Do those teachers not deserve recognition just like the teachers in schools where most students surpass the benchmarks every year?
So how is this ‘pay based on test scores’ evaluation plan supposed to fairly identify highly-qualified teachers?
Will this be another mandate with no guidelines and no money behind it? Please say no. In fact, put forward other well-documented ways to help students succeed, not pay-for-test-score-performance at all.